BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today launched a new project aimed at promoting and protecting equality in the exercise of the individual fundamental right to keep and bear arms, with a video message for television and the internet, and a new website EqualGunRights.com with a petition campaign . . .

President Barack Obama and his cronies have founded Organizing for Action (OFA), which is running a deplorable national media campaign aimed at lobbying Congress for additional restrictions on firearms, the primary means of self-defense for millions of law-abiding Americans. The SAF EqualGunRights.com campaign will counter that effort.

“It doesn’t matter where you live, whether in the city, suburbs or a rural area,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “all law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves and their families.”

The video spot, website and campaign, produced in collaboration with Political Media, highlights the disproportionate impact of gun control laws on African-Americans, Latinos and other minorities, and how it leaves large groups unable to defend themselves, their families, or their businesses. The video shows citizens from different parts of the country commenting on their local gun laws, providing a vivid contrast between people who live in regions with laws that enable citizens to exercise their rights, and those who reside in areas with restrictive gun laws which typically have larger minority populations, including Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City.

“You won’t see President Obama or his anti-gun cohorts admitting it,” Gottlieb observed, “but the simple fact is that gun control has historically disarmed far more African Americans than any other demographic. And, as you can see in our video spot, African-Americans and other minorities are still the primary victims of gun control laws in America.

“It is unconscionable that in 2013, so-called progressives are quietly permitting laws to stand that disproportionately diminish the rights of minorities,” he continued. “The late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was blocked by segregationists when he tried to get his concealed carry permit, because they knew equal strength to defend oneself leads to societal equality. Sadly, gun control advocates today are de facto fighting for that same inequality.”

“I hope that people across this country will join us at EqualGunRights.com and demand an end to this discrimination,” Gottlieb concluded. “It doesn’t matter where you live, or what kind of neighbors you have – all law abiding citizens should be able to arm and defend themselves. “

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

So this seems semantic and useless (even after re-reading what I am writing), but “guns” don’t have “rights” technically and while we all know that we are talking about a person’s individual right to bear arms, the anti-s jump on this point and it is an annoying distraction. I’d call it “Equal Right to Bear Arms” rather than “Equal Gun Rights”. Also, when the anti-s use the term “gun violence” they are showing that they are only really focused on and concerned with “the gun”. This is their moral failing. I am not focused on “the gun” when I think of what we call “gun rights”, rather literally “the right of the people to bear arms”. It’s not a gun issue, it’s a people’s rights issue. Guns happen to be the current state of individually bearable arms, so their relation (should be… I know it isn’t actually) secondary in nature to the main point. I only bring this up because “argument re-framing” is regrettably what wins or loses this battle, not being right

The need for precision is in our nature as gun owners. I don’t really have a problem, however, with the term “gun rights”. I agree it’s not precise, as you point out, but it gets the point across.

Same thing with “clips” vs. “mags”. The other side likes to use the term “clips” just to piss us off and hear us rant about “mags”. It doesn’t make us look good, even if they are technically incorrect. I guarantee most people in this country don’t give a rip what term is used.

Your main point is a good one: language shapes the argument. This is exactly why the pro-2A side needs to get emotional. Facts and logic are on the side of gun ownership, but this battle is being fought with emotions. We need both.

We also need to include *ALL* minorities and subgroups, not just those that look like you and your neighbors. We have to work through the artificial divisions that keep us from uniting to protect our rights.

I’m not saying we all have to be in lockstep or even that we all need to be single issue voters. What I am saying is that “united we stand, divided we fall” is just as true now as it was when Aesop uttered those words (or the Greek equivalent) as a slave some 2,500 years ago.

The issue has always been civil rights. I am an American citizen but because of my zip code I live in a constitution free zone? Because of where I work or shop my rights as a citizen don’t apply? I call bvllshit!

I am glad I signed up to support SAF this year. If you are wondering if there is more you can do than just your yearly fee to support SAF the answer is yes. You can get your shopping done and support them at the same time and it will cost you nothing. Here is a letter from SAF.

Support SAF by Shopping at Amazon

How can you save money AND support SAF’s lawsuits (helmed by legal rockstars like Alan Gura) at the same time? It’s as easy as 1 – 2 – 3!

1. Get to Amazon through saf.org/amazon. When you want to shop at Amazon, get there by going to saf.org/amazon – you’ll be redirected to the regular Amazon homepage. Voila!

2. Buy stuff! Really. It’s that simple. Every item that you buy through saf.org/amazon (even if you just put items in your cart and buy them later) is credited to our fundraising program. Oh – it costs you NOTHING, by the way. Total win-win, right?

3. Watch SAF win (with your help!). Up to 10% of every purchase through saf.org/amazon is sent by Amazon to SAF about 45 days later. That’s some 2A cha-ching!

Beautiful! Bet they have a hard time buying space on any national network shows other than Fox.

And the next ad by SAF should point out that the original “reasonable gun control laws” in America were passed in the South right after the Civil War, and were specifically designed to make it impossible for the recently-freed blacks to keep and bear arms. The racist roots of gun control continue under the big-city mayors, many of whom are white “liberals” (NYC, Chicago, etc.).

I like the screen text at the end, “Self defense is a human right”. It’s not enough to talk about the second amendment, because the leftists just say ‘well it can be repealed’ and people without a strong opinion figure they’re right, if it’s that big a deal we’ll just amend the Constitution. You can’t amend human rights.

Ugh….its started off well, but it was all down hill from there. All this says to me is that black folks live in the city and hick white folks carry their guns where ever they want. There is a novel’s worth that can be said just about the family in Chicago, why muddy the waters (see what I did there?) and then start reciting the 2nd amendment?

Make it racial, because it is. Poor urban communities, which happen to be predominantly black, are more at risk for violence and criminal behavior but are typically highly restrictive when it comes to guns. Why are they less entitled to self protection than someone in a suburban or rural community?

agreed- keep the ad under 30 seconds and just make the disparities clear based upon race and location . . . . the msg will sink in quickly. Get it airplay in urban areas with democratic leadership, pop up some popcorn, and enjoy the show.

oh, and Rahm can suck it. If he wants to complain, tell him I am Black and he is a racist. See what I just did there?

Yeah, I think I agree with you. It needs to be simpler. Gun control tends to disproportionally effect minorities.

You dont even have to implicitly state the racism of the matter. You could just to allude to it. Something like what Matt in SD said above, “Urban communities are more at risk for violence and criminal behavior but are typically highly restrictive when it comes to guns. Why are you less entitled to self protection than someone in a suburban or rural community?”

well . . . they can be a little more overt. Obama plays the race card all of the time. Time to reshuffle the deck and ask the locals in urban communities, why does Obama think the White guy’s family is more important than your own? that will sell.

They could even mention that much of the less lethal stuff like tasers and pepperspray have been banned in the same urban areas which have banned guns, so that the people aren’t even allowed that option.

How could we get it in Minnesota? Although it looks like an AR ban and Magazine limits are off the table, we are still fighting the fight against universal registration. Do we need more SAF members in Minnesota? What is neccessary to get it here? Also needs airtime in CO.

Stop-and-Frisk abuses corrode trust between the police and communities, which makes everyone less safe. Don’t believe us? Then listen to NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly in 2000: “[A] large reservoir of good will was under construction when I left the Police Department in 1994. It was called community policing. But it was quickly abandoned for tough-sounding rhetoric and dubious stop-and-frisk tactics that sowed new seeds of community mistrust.”

I’m gonna be a contrarian here (though I don’t really disagree with the poster above). S&F gave NY a tool to control “its gun problem” [which we know is really a bunch of other problems]. Without it, they think that their only recourse is now to restrict everybody’s rights to stop those eeeevil guns from getting to NY. So the demise of S&F will push Bloomie and others to attack the rights of non-NYers even more.

The NRA should take a cue from the SAF and create some messages with this substance and tone. A lot of the NRA stuff is good for preaching to the choir but not in getting traction with those who are capable of being influenced.

Absolutely right. The NRA does not seem to get that the country is changing and we need to tailor the message to that change. My copy of 1st Freedom came today and the cover story is about buying gold! What type of bs is this?

The SAF seems to be much better at trying to expand the scope of the right, as opposed to just hunkering down and hoping the problem will go away.

Nice work, SAF, although I wish it was almost all minorities and women. White people carrying guns is nothing new. This is a great start to the heart argument we need in the fight to preserve and expand freedom.